Denial of legitimate salary violates rights of employee, dependents: CAT

Srinagar: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has held that the legitimately-earned salary was the right of both an employee and his dependents and its denial increases the sufferings of the bread earner’s family.

“The legitimately-earned salary is not only the right of an employee but it is equally the right of those people who are dependent upon him. The denial of salary does not only concern the employee but it gives rise to more suffering for his family whose bread and butter is dependent upon the earnings of the bread earner,” a division bench of M S Latif Member (J) and Prasant Kumar Member (A)  said.

Hearing the contempt plea by one Parvaiz Ahmad Ganie, the bench expressed its displeasure over the dilatory approach by the authorities to conclude an inquiry against Ganie who had joined PWD on January 1, 1994.

The counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the court to the order dated June 26, 2023, whereby the respondents (authorities) have undertaken an inquiry and sought two months more time to complete it and to report compliance.

“This matter has come up today after more than three months. The inquiry is yet to be concluded whereas the Divisional Officer ought to have honoured his statement and completed the inquiry, particularly since the petitioner has been denied his salary from the year 2021,” the bench said. “Article 21 guarantees the right to life and the right to livelihood.” 

In terms of the judgment dated April 29, 2022, the division bench of the court had directed the competent authority to consider Ganie’s representation and dispose it of by passing a reasoned and speaking order and considering the release of his salary as per the rules.

The tribunal observed that the statement of facts submitted by the Executive Engineer (R&B) Division, Qazigund, indicated that as per the service book of Ganie, he was appointed by the Chief Engineer (R&B) Kashmir vide order No CE-PWD(R&B) K-196 of 1993 dated December 11, 1993, issued under endorsement No 16211-13 dated December 11, 1993, and he has joined on January 1, 1994.

The statement of facts also divulged that “in 2020 various complaints were received regarding the appointment of the petitioner and the case has been referred to Superintending Engineer (R&B), Circular Road Project Division Srinagar, Kashmir, who is the Departmental Vigilance Officer by the Chief Engineer PWD (R&B), Kashmir, vide his communication dated October 21, 2022, for inquiry”.  

“This court has to ensure compliance of the judgment passed by the court in its letter and spirit as also that the court orders are upheld without any delay or excuse on account of intentional or unintentional departmental lethargy as rule of law is supreme,” the tribunal said.

It held that before proceeding further in the matter, the “counsel for the respondents as also the Executive Engineer, who was present is directed to ensure that the inquiry is brought to its logical end within six weeks positively, failing which the concerned Superintending Engineer be present before the court on November 21”.